Slashdot Mirror
High Severity BIND Vulnerability Advisory Issued
wiredmikey writes "The Internet Systems Consortium (ISC) and US-CERT have issued a high severity vulnerability warning, discovered by Neustar, which affects BIND, the most widely used DNS software on the Internet. Successful exploitation could enable attacker to cause Bind servers to stop processing all requests. According to the disclosure, 'When an authoritative server processes a successful IXFR transfer or a dynamic update, there is a small window of time during which the IXFR/update coupled with a query may cause a deadlock to occur. This deadlock will cause the server to stop processing all requests. A high query rate and/or a high update rate will increase the probability of this condition.'"
"There have been no active exploits known, and versions 9.7.1-9.7.2-P3 versions of BIND are affected. US-CERT encourages users and administrators using the affected versions of BIND to upgrade to BIND 9.7.3 "
never a better time to get connected? see you there?
The government doesn't need an "internet kill switch" when they can just exploit things like this.
I'm giving them way too much credit...
inb4 well-known /fag DNS-and-BIND
I wonder how long it'll be until FreeBSD rolls a security update out for this.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
What about versions before 9.7.1? Looks like this vulnerability affects only Bind servers within the specific range: 9.7.1-9.7.2-P3
Let me ask a question, when alerts come out like this that explain a vulnerability, do they always state the problem the way it happens?
Like, if someone understood how to exploit this vulnerability, are they really going to shut down DNS services or could it be that there is a worse vulnerability underneath? For instance, could this actually be a call to patch something that allows for DNS spoof, where someone does not want the issue to have wide awareness?
I'd hardly call hosts files obscure...
Also, restricting name resolution to host file only does not "defacto limit the webservers that employees may visit" as this file is never consulted if the user decides to access a webserver via its IP address.
No, entries in the hosts-file doesn't make your computer into a nameserver. They do however override the system lookup so that you don't have to use a name server for this.
c++;
I'd hardly call hosts files obscure...
Also, restricting name resolution to host file only does not "defacto limit the webservers that employees may visit" as this file is never consulted if the webserver is accessed via its IP address.
I'm pretty sure that's well known...
No sig today...
This is not well known, but every computer connected to the Internet is capable of being its own nameserver.
This is in fact fairly well known among the people who need to know these things. Also the hosts file is no substitute for DNS. It cannot, for example, give you MX records, cannot perform round-robin load balancing, and even if the sync of the hosts file is very quick, is not a suitable way to deal with the fact that name to ip mappings change frequently. Anyone who set things up as described above would be committing malpractice.
Someone had to do it.
This sounds like a denial-of-service flaw. Such flaws are considered "low severity" in all but the rarest cases. A high-severity flaw would be one which either gives a hacker control of a service or access to sensitive information.
This is just one more in a long list of well-known ways anyone could knock a server offline.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Hosts.txt isn't a well-known thing? I would categorize it as more of a known-but-inefficient thing, since you can typically do redirection and other stuff hosts.txt does at the firewall level, negating the need for some complex P2P setup.
High severity threats are those that either disclose sensitive information or allow unauthorized control of a service or system. Denial of service vulnerabilities are almost universally considered low severity. This is just one more in a long list of known ways to DoS a system.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Seriously? What companies avoid nameservers?
Why would you believe your P2P software is less prone to vulnerabilities than BIND?
Perhaps, If your company employs people who cannot type in an IP address. Nonetheless, I can think of many much better ways to limit employee internet access.
All software has vulnerabilities. If your nameserver has an issue, you upgrade BIND and you're done. If your P2P software on every desktop has a vulnerability, you now have to update software on every desktop. Assuming, that is, that the vulnerability is ever publicly disclosed.
Who could have foreseen such a problem in such modern and well-crafted software.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Just an FYI - we use PowerDNS instead of Bind: www.dnshat.com
This was bound to happen...
Also severely limits who you can send email to. And is excessively cumbersome. Easier to just run your own BIND and not allow connections from outside.
My footer quote reads:
> You will not censor me through bug terrorism. -- James Troup
djbdns - if you want a secure one.
You can't handle the truth.
According to RHEL CVE database RH distros are not vulnerable. "This issue did not affect the versions of bind as shipped with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4, 5, or 6."
Hosts is old. It predates DNS, and is one of the reasons for DNS. DNS (and WINS, technically) were developed because maintenance of the hosts file across a network of computers is too complex. Updates would be slow, insecure, inconsistent and unreliable, particularly if you use DHCP on your network instead of static addressing (which everybody with a brain does on a non-trivial network). Cache poisoning would be a constant problem. Nevermind that all the hosts file does is translate names to IP addresses, while DNS does much more than that.
So, yes, if you're willing to sacrifice ease of administration, security, functionality, performance, and reliability, you can absolutely revert to distributed hosts files over DNS.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
Most of what I see hosts files used for now is to "null route" (direct to 0.0.0.0) known bad hosts.
I do the same on my computers, but instead of "known bad" hosts I block various ad servers
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Now I really wonder... are you someone totally incompetent trying to post as a windows admin or just an elaborate troll
Because I really don't see the point to try to push the usage of host files in this community (or any community, for that matter - especially as an alternative to DNS).
yeah.. until your hosts file is a couple hundred kB. flat text files don't scale well.
Yeah, a lot of anti-malware software does this. Spybot Search & Destroy adds about 15,000 entires to hosts that point to 127.0.0.1, which might fail safer than a null route. It amounts to the same thing.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
"Now I really wonder... are you someone totally incompetent trying to post as a windows admin or just an elaborate troll" - by geogob (569250) on Wednesday February 23, @12:22PM (#35291486)
Take it easy man, no need to insult him. He's trying & he really isn't THAT "far off base" on what he noted!
HOWEVER:
You don't need P2P to distribute HOSTS files as he stated (logon scripts work nicely here)
&
It's not "hosts.txt" as he noted, but hosts (no extension).
---
"I really don't see the point to try to push the usage of host files in this community (or any community, for that matter - especially as an alternative to DNS)." - by geogob (569250) on Wednesday February 23, @12:22PM (#35291486)
I beg to differ, especially In cases where DNS has bugs or is misdirect/redirect "poisoned"? HOSTS ARE AN EXCELLENT SUPPLEMENT! Especially for SECURITY vs. redirect/misdirect poisonings of DNS records!!!!
HOSTS can also get you more speed than using external remote DNS servers, & by blocking out adbanners too! You can DOUBLE YOUR SPEED online this way, try it yourself & see!
AND??
HOSTS can get you more security & anonymity to a degree even (vs. DNS request logs even), & security vs. KNOWN bad sites/servers/host-domain names as well, by "blacklist blocking" them out.
APK
P.S.=> If you are not aware of those things? Then, perhaps, you shouldn't have ridiculed the ac that posted this here... he was "off" on a few things I noted above, but, not entirely in principal... apk
return to ARPAnet? Are you MAD?!?! replace the hierarchical DNS structure w/ P2P filesharing to avoid a vulnerability? Are you INSANE?!?! Sure, professional consultants may understand that alternatives exist for several key infrastructure services (oooh let's get rid of RIP/EIGRP/BGP/etc w/ static routes. It's more secure and that means its more reliable!). Hopefully they understand the issues w/ NOT utilizing it and the ramifications to operational costs to maintain it as well as the implications to reliability. End of the day... you're CRAZY!
"replace the hierarchical DNS structure w/ P2P filesharing to avoid a vulnerability?... End of the day... you're CRAZY! - by IT.luddite (1633703) on Wednesday February 23, @12:52PM (#35291784)
To update a HOSTS file, all you need is a LOGON script... for starters, & a P2P method is rather "overkill" (I agree here).
However: TO OFFSET & IMMUNIZE ONE'S SELF vs. DNS POISONING of DNS records? Hosts work...
I personally don't think one should REPLACE DNS with HOSTS, but rather supplement DNS (vs. redirect/misdirects like this one i.e. DNS poisonings, & to GO FASTER TOO!)
I use HOSTS to block out known malicious sites (936,000++ here & counting, updated by the MINUTE no less here from many reputable & reliable sources) and adbanners too.
Doing the last paragraph? I make a DSL connection seem like FIOS, because I am not calling out to remote DNS servers (roundtrip there is, minimum, 30-60ms & that's longer than local file access of a HOSTS file, especially once its cached into memory).
In this case though? HOSTS make sense, as they can proof you vs. such things or even sites going down (when SECUNIA.COM was hit this way? I was reaching it when MOST of the internet, couldn't... how/why?? HOSTS hardcode of secunia's IPAddress-to-Hosts/Domain Name for them!)
APK
I am not one of the ACs in this thread. That being said, I have some background and experience in network administration in environments from SOHO to global enterprises.
Now, please detail how you'd set up an automatic and redundant P2P distribution network for a HOSTS file including your mechanism for securely updating said HOSTS file from a location of your choosing, and explain how your solution is more efficient than your company's infrastructure's DNS systems. If you allow updates from anywhere other than a central location, what happens when malware on a personal computer alters the HOSTS file - does it cause an erroneous update to be pushed out to the group? Can you ever tell that the one computer is stale? Would you push the updates on demand only, or every X minutes/days?
You're clearly talking about a business use of some sort here. Have you done this in a business environment? How large? How did you convince them to allow you to override DNS with myriad HOSTS files? Have improvements in their network infrastructure superceded your solution, perhaps without your knowledge?
The only benefit to having a HOSTS file distribution like that might be that it could be distributed faster than your DNS can replicate changes via a push or pull mechanism, although in a modern enterprise environment DNS changes should be able to propagate in minutes if not seconds.
Once a system is removed from that HOSTS file distribution, or the distribution fails because a server dies or a network link is broken temporarily, or a user does something that causes their personal machine to stop receiving changes, then you have stale HOSTS files everywhere conflicting with your DNS. How do you propose to clean that mess up?
DNS should at least be set up such that (in no particular order):
1) It is very redundant (multi-homed) and thus robust/reliable
2) Administrators can control it and add/alter/remove records
3) Replication is fast
4) The source of changes can be verified or at least identified
5) Poisoned updates from the untrusted wilds can be rolled back and audited once they have been identified
How often do you have significant DNS bugs whose actual (not theoretical) impact and resolution outweighs the implementation cost (time and money) of your custom HOSTS distribution solution? I propose that this scenario does not exist, but someone has created this alternate solution "just in case" which just smacks of the 1980s rather than learning how to correctly administer their DNS infrastructure. Either that, or someone is upset because they weren't permitted to alter the corporate DNS the way they wanted / anonymously, and became the squeaky wheel and pitched their solution to execs in the business who don't know the difference between a CPU and a chassis. (Nor should they have to, it's not their job.) These are possibilities, perhaps not accurate. However: None of these are acceptable for a network administrator. All network admins should be seeking ways to improve their DNS setup, staying on top of the state of the art, and using HOSTS files *only* when appropriate.
HOSTS files do have uses.
* Null-routing a server that's been causing some isolated issue, such as an ad server or some other server that your software times out waiting for; Also, null-routing a server to prevent a new software package you're testing/developing from reaching a production server
* Rerouting a name to your local development environment while debugging or developing software
* Guarantee resolution of key server names on a portable demo workstation that often finds itself on different private networks
I think you need to chill out a little bit, regardless. There's entirely too much angry excitement in this thread, and there's a lot of arguments that seem to stem from personal experiences with isolated situations from the distant past that basically never happen in a properly configured environment, and don't cause the kind of disaster that they are imagined to cause. Let's try to stay calm, civil and professional on a public technology website.
Now, please detail how you'd set up an automatic and redundant P2P distribution network for a HOSTS file including your mechanism for securely updating said HOSTS file from a location of your choosing, and explain how your solution is more efficient than your company's infrastructure's DNS systems" - by djdanlib (732853) on Wednesday February 23, @01:17PM (#35292032) Homepage
I am not the OP/parent here, I am APK (I post as AC here all the time & "sign off" @ the termination of my posts as "APK", so you know). You should look thru my other replies here, because you're now sitting there with egg on your face accusing me of something I never said, & in fact, something I disagree with myself (using P2P to update HOSTS). Logon scripts work for that, easily!
You have me confused with the other fellow... I update HOSTS on LAN/WAN setups using logon scripts!
APK
P.S.=> If you'd have read PROPERLY? You'd see that I recommended using Logon Scripts for HOSTS files updates... & yes, I have done this in ENTERPRISE class scenarios with 100's of users in fact! apk
Does anyone know which DNS servers are either derived from or just repackaged BIND? I haven't been able to find this information anywhere.
I addressed my post incorrectly. I was replying to the thread as a whole, which was not correctly conveyed.
Logon scripts that copy from where?
Still, it wouldn't kill you to be civil.
"I addressed my post incorrectly. I was replying to the thread as a whole, which was not correctly conveyed." - by djdanlib (732853) on Wednesday February 23, @01:32PM (#35292166) Homepage
Fair enough... try not do it again I suppose! LOL, that made you look pretty poorly, but fair enough.
(Again, stressing it, as I did to others here: Logon scripts can do the job updating a HOSTS file... which work vs. DNS poisoning redirectes bigtime, & are easily updated + distributed, via logon scripts (when it matters most, when a user signs onto a machine to use it)).
APK
P.S.=>
"Logon scripts that copy from where?" - by djdanlib (732853) on Wednesday February 23, @01:32PM (#35292166) Homepage
From your fastest server I suppose (that's how I went about it in LAN/WAN scenarios)... OR, there ARE other methods, other than logon scripts!
E.G.-> See MVPS.ORG (they make a pretty "famous" HOSTS file, much smaller & less comprehensive than mine, but well known).
They have a tool for it (I built one myself years before it in fact, but I use it only for my personal uses, APK Hosts File Grinder 4.0++)...
Anyhow/anyways - See this page:
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
Look for "HOSTSMAN" there...
I.E.-> it is capable of doing remote HOSTS file updates in fact, & from a VERY "reputable & reliable" source, mvps.org!
---
"Still, it wouldn't kill you to be civil.." - by djdanlib (732853) on Wednesday February 23, @01:32PM (#35292166) Homepage
I am, per my subject-line...
I only stated fact when I said you're sitting there with "egg on your face" accusing me of stating I was using P2P setups to update HOSTS files is all... because I never said it!
Fact is, the post you replied to of mine? Even has me SAYING I used logon scripts to update hosts in networked environs! You "skimmed over" that... fact! apk
Do not get in Internet argument with APK he's really volatile and might issue you a standing death threat over it:
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?p=283463#post283463
Distinct posting style especially key giveaway P.S.=> indicates this is same APK: http://forums.techpowerup.com/search.php?searchid=13405991
Beware the investigative powers of the anonymous Internet, and don't post thing publicly you wouldn't want us to find...!!!
"Seriously? What companies avoid nameservers?" - by Albanach (527650) on Wednesday February 23, @11:14AM (#35290864) Homepage
Uhm, there ARE "rogue DNS servers" out there, & ones that malware makers themselves actually use... & what's a way to block them out? Hosts is 1 possible.
---
FAST FLUX DNS MALWARE TECHNIQUE IN A NUTSHELL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_flux
---
Iirc, "fast-fluxing" is one method that involves DNS & rogue servers, & malware makers use it... So, that said?
YOU MAY WISH TO "LOOK INTO IT", yourself...
---
"Perhaps, If your company employs people who cannot type in an IP address." - by Albanach (527650) on Wednesday February 23, @11:14AM (#35290864) Homepage
LMAO, hey man - there IS "plenty of THAT, 'going around'" too, & YOU KNOW IT! Lol... some folks just do NOT "get into being geeks" is all.
---
"Nonetheless, I can think of many much better ways to limit employee internet access." - by Albanach (527650) on Wednesday February 23, @11:14AM (#35290864) Homepage
Hosts work for it, nonetheless, & especially in cases where the DNS records are false/erroneous/hijacked... as they are in this case, & many others the past decade or so now.
APK
P.S.=> Hosts files are an EXCELLENT security AND SPEED supplement to DNS servers, but they're not really a GOOD SOLID FULL replacement...
HOWEVER: Using HOSTS files to:
1.) Block out KNOWN BAD SITES/SERVERS/HOSTS-DOMAINS, is good for security
2.) Blocking adbanners is also good for security (since they've been hijacked quite a lot the past few years) AND SPEED too (e.g./i.e. - I make a DSL connection behave like FIOS almost, on the web @ least this way)
3.) HOSTS aid anonymity (avoiding DNS request logs, which you'd *think* DNS server admins might like, since it "lessens the load" on DNS servers!)... apk
I'd hardly call hosts files obscure...
Tell that to my wife (and the billions of windows users who starts to shake and cough just like the old man in that book by Nabakov) everytime i say "Why don't you just open another tab instead of going back and forth between web pages?"
Her response is, "I don't know what you mean!"
soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
Pete, you're a troll and a moron. You made a complete ass of yourself here and you continure to do so in this forum.
If I am "so bad"? Then why does TechPowerUp still host my software there then??
E.G. #1:
APK Registry Cleaning Engine 2002++ SR-7:
http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/389/APK_Registry_Cleaning_Engine_2002++_SR-7_.html
E.G. #2:
APK Matrix ScreenSaver:
http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/390/APK_Matrix_ScreenSaver.html
?
(iirc, they're even MORE DOWNLOADED in the categories they're in, than WinZip there even!)
Plus, anyone can sign off as anyone... & for all I know? Someone impersonated me, yet again, there (like they have here, many times, or at arstechnica where they did so as well & got caught in it (Jeremy Reimer specifically)).
APK
P.S.=> SO, you can TRY to go "off topic" & try to discredit me, but you're not doing well @ it... In fact, I've noted that when folks have to go "off topic" in replies?? They KNOW they've lost the debate... apk
"Pete, you're a troll and a moron. You made a complete ass of yourself here and you continure to do so in this forum." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 23, @02:04PM (#35292568)
Since you're off topic & trolling me? What's good for the goose, is good for the gander... here we go, tit for tat:
Thor SCHMUCK? LOL, tell him that his buddy Ty Tymkovich says hello... ok??
(Gee, I just WONDER (not) who sent Ty Thor's way... lol!)
$5,000 Thor SCHMUCK got absolutely SUCKERED for by Good Ole' Ty (someone should nominate him for sainthood imo, lol), after Thor libelled myself?
Serves him right!
APK
P.S.=> You ought to tell Thor SCHMUCK to tell his Sis to keep her legs together too... she's NOT good at that from what I see (& only THOR calls me "Pete" so, it doesn't take a brain to see you're he)... apk
See subject-line, lol, and tell your sister to keep her legs together Thor (there'd be 1 less fatherless bastard out there, you know? It's not the kid's fault either... that's the SAD part, because I think kids are 1 of the FEW redeeming features of humanity, especially little kids. However, IRRESPONSIBLE ADULTS? Not so!).
Ty, listen: Next time you wonder how Ty Tymkovich got a piece of you, for $5,000? DON'T THINK *TOO* LONG... lol!
I don't know WHERE this "roommate" thing came from, or my Mom, but I own my own home, & have rental properties too... but, to each his own!
Lastly, I'll tell you 1 thing: You seem to know which meds to take... is this the "voice of experience" on YOUR end, taking them, yourself? Sounds it... try get on topic, you might sound more credible.
APK
P.S.=> As far as the rest of your attempting to troll me? Please - keep your "sidewalk surgeon/quack" diagnosis-prognosis to yourself... ok? Until you get your PHD in Psychiatry, and a license to practice it, and you have done a formal examination of myself in a professional environs??? Please... your own "delusions of grandeur" have gotten the BEST of you (like Ty Tymkovich did, lol)... because you're NO psychiatrist! apk
Ugh, it's the Hosts File troll again.
"if that's you, you tend to know what you're talking about" - by djdanlib (732853) on Wednesday February 23, @02:33PM (#35292844) Homepage
Thank you. We DO try! I didn't follow the links posted, because it's obivously trolls around here (as you yourself noted).
---
"It's clear that you're not in this for an exchange of ideas" - by djdanlib (732853) on Wednesday February 23, @02:33PM (#35292844) Homepage
Why, sure I am... I showed you 2 diff. ways to remotely update a HOSTS file, reliably & from reputable sources!
MVPS.ORG (manually, or via the HOSTSMAN program)
or
Using logon scripts
I just wanted to make SURE you knew I wasn't the OP/parent poster that noted using P2P was his way of updating a HOSTS file (but, it's NOT like THAT's "undoable" either... it's just that using logon scripts on a LAN/WAN is better, imo @ least).
---
"Ugh, there are some bored forum trolls and they are out in force today." - by djdanlib (732853) on Wednesday February 23, @02:33PM (#35292844) Homepage
LOL, yes there are... I get this regularly, I am QUITE used to it! The problem with some of these wannabe "geeks" is that they cannot handle it when they're off/wrong... & they follow + stalk you online, endlessly.
I don't mind it though, not really... why? Well - I just shoot them down with facts, everytime, & usually it's VERY easy to do (as I usually say, that pisses them off to NO end?? "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'")
---
" It's a shame when Slashdot turns into this" - by djdanlib (732853) on Wednesday February 23, @02:33PM (#35292844) Homepage
I agree, but, don't let it bother you... then again, I am used to being trolled, perhaps you are not (& I was not trolling you - I merely pointed out you made a mistake saying I used P2P to update hosts, & I showed you I do not )
APK
P.S.=>
"although you get more impassioned than other people might." - by djdanlib (732853) on Wednesday February 23, @02:33PM (#35292844) Homepage
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't... it mostly depends if I am attacked first is all, then I come out "all guns blazing"... Hey - only human here & defending myself is all. I have every right to that much.
However - I have been impersonated online, many times here on this site in fact (because I post AC), & even by well-known sites (e.g. arstechnica) + their personnel (which astounded me, but that's THEIR "Geek Angst" working against them is all - they most likely regret it later I imagine).... apk
"Judging by how he didn't respond to your idiotic statements at the end of his column I would guess that he's far too busy to deal with someone who's clearly taking trolling to a professional level." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 23, @02:43PM (#35292950)
Like yourself off topic here the whole time?
Thor COULDN'T respond... when I used the example of Spybot "Search & Destroy" altering a HOSTS file (albeit for the GOOD of others), & yet, he doesn't list it as a malware? It showed how much Thor SCHMUCK knew (zero).
I asked him also why PING is not listed... it can issue a PING OF DEATH (or could on various distros/OS over time)... funny he shut up there too, eh??
THOR SCHMUCK IS A 1/2 WIT WITH NO DEGREE IN COMPUTER SCIENCE TRYING TO PLAY "EXPERT" ONLINE, PERIOD... & IT BACKFIRED IN HIS FACE WHEN HE TRIED ME IS ALL!
(Ty Tymkovich took him for $5,000 too, lol, hiliarious!)
---
"Maybe if you'd work as hard at your software as you do at being a douche bag then your (cr)apps wouldn't have ended up on the malware lists" - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 23, @02:43PM (#35292950)
My software's & work in it have done well for me... here is a partial list (in addition to the apps I showed from techpowerup here in this very exchange too):
---
Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61
(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)
PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there
WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there
PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there
CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there
GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it
HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!
Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...
Being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&t=28430&page=3
Lastly, lately (this year)?
It's also been myself helping out the folks at the UltraDefrag64 project (a 64-bit defragger for Windows), in showing them code for how to do Process Priority Control @ the GUI usermode/ring 3/rpl 3 level in their program (good one too), & being credited for it by their lead dev & his team... see here ->
http://ultradefrag.sourceforge.net/handbook/Credits.html
---
Plus, your calling me "douchebag"? Please... lol! You're not only an off topic troll, but also an ad hominem attack using one too! Poor showing...
APK
P.S.=>
"Nope, not Thor." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 23, @02:43PM (#35292950)
Yea, "right" (sarcasm
"Ugh, it's the Hosts File troll again." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 23, @02:45PM (#35292968)
LOL, you guys like to "troll me" ad hominem attack style & call me that, but...
The OP/parent poster on HOSTS files? It's not me... too many technical mistakes (e.g. hosts.txt, no filetype extension's on HOSTS), for one thing... & his using P2P, though not IMPOSSIBLE, is not the way to update a HOSTS file... . Logon scripts or tools like HOSTSMAN are better imo!
I offered/noted other ways, from reputable & reliable sources, all thru this thread.
APK
P.S.=> NOW, lastly, in closing:
The funniest part of all this is that whatever I posted in favor of HOSTS file here, that overturned the "naysayers" here, & made them have to resort to "off topic" trolling &/or adhominem attacks directed MY way... rather than disputing & disproving my points (as I did to theirs, for THEIR OWN GOOD, and the GOOD OF OTHERS (misinforming others is NOT cool is why)) seems to have done its job - how can I say that? Easy: The fact you're AD HOMINEM ATTACKING ME, or trying to (wrong guy though) shows us all that much... apk
"BTW, I am an Internet PSEUDODOCTOLOGIST with my PHD from the Arsclan University and I'm fully qualified to diagnose you as BAT SHIT crazy. Though I have a feeling I'm not the only one who has told you that, am I? ( = - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 23, @03:01PM (#35293078)
Please: Grow up.
APK
P.S.=> When you calm down, I wish you'd look at the stupidity in your post, off topic & ad hominem attack nature of it especially... it makes you look silly + immature, & only makes my points stronger for it.
After all - when you're "forced" to go "off topic" & to ad hominem attack a poster? You've lost... badly! That's attacking "the man", not his technical points... that's a logical fallacy on YOUR part! apk
This is fun. I legitimately have time on my hands to waste, clearly someone of your importance and intellect has much better things to do than to entertain the likes of me. I'm a complete NOBODY and have ruffled your feathers, haven't I? I find it especially laughable that you compare yourself to the likes of Sofer and Russinovich. I've used your reg clean tool and it's not even close to the capabilities/functionalities/variabilities of Juoni Vuorio's jv16 Power tools.
You MAY have been cool in 1997 but those days are over, momma's boy. Better check the batteries in your pillminder...you've missed a dose.
Never at any point did I say I was attacking your technical points. I am talking to you. You, Alexander Peter (petey) Kowalski. I've been watching your posts for a long time and have seen you get banned from technical forum after technical forum. I counted FIVE in just 30 minutes of looking. Lemme guess...you proved them ALL wrong with your superior intellect and logic bombs and they just couldn't respond any other way than to BAN you! You might even be correct in SOME of your arguments, but you're such a dick in the way you do it no one cares to give you credit.
The common denominator in all of those instances is YOU, Petey. Stop trying to hard to be right all the time and maybe, just maybe, you'll be able to make and keep a friend or two.
P.S.=> This is my last post...I have some actual work to do now. I'm sure you'll keep going, but just remember: The LAST word isn't always the RIGHT word.
"I'm a complete NOBODY and have ruffled your feathers, haven't I? " - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 23, @03:19PM (#35293236)
No... what gives you THAT idea? I am having fun shooting you down on every "off topic" ad hominem attack you make, easily... it's actually FUN, but, too easy to do.
---
"I've used your reg clean tool and it's not even close to the capabilities/functionalities/variabilities of Juoni Vuorio's jv16 Power tools." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 23, @03:19PM (#35293236)
LOL - funny you mention that tool:
He does "OK" work, but?
Well, hate to point out the OBVIOUS here, but:
I don't see anything he did go & take a FINALIST SPOT over at Microsoft Tech Ed 2000-2002 for instance as my work had on PAID contract for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com though...
(& certainly NOT before I had achieved that type of "fame" or whatever you call it... was just decent work to me!)
---
"This is fun.." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 23, @03:19PM (#35293236)
Making you look like a fool? Absolutely. I am having fun doing it... as it is just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'"...
(Especially since you have to go "off topic" & ad hominem attack me, rather than stay on the topic of HOSTS files here)
---
"I legitimately have time on my hands to waste, clearly someone of your importance and intellect has much better things to do than to entertain the likes of me.." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 23, @03:19PM (#35293236)
Thank you for the compliments. I am entertaining myself here though, blowing an off topic ad hominem attack using troll like you easily...
---
"I find it especially laughable that you compare yourself to the likes of Sofer and Russinovich." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 23, @03:19PM (#35293236)
Well, Nir knows me from email, & he does a good set of smallish "power tools" type apps... I like the guy! We've talked many a time in email etc. (ask him yourself).
Dr. Russinovich?
He & I used to work for the SAME company in the mid to late 1990's in fact...
Additionally - I have actually CORRECTED HIS WORK FOR HIM BEFORE (ask him about PageDefrag)...
Dr. Russinovich even THANKED me in email for that one (he hardcoded stuff, I was amazed... but, that shows you that a PHD after your name, does NOT guarantee perfection or smarts all the time either).
APK
P.S.=>
"You MAY have been cool in 1997 but those days are over, momma's boy. Better check the batteries in your pillminder...you've missed a dose." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 23, @03:19PM (#35293236)
Well, I have done well over time in shareware, freeware, open source, & commercially sold apps, per the lists I put up of that as evidence (only partial lists too)... have you, ever?
POINT-BLANK: You're a NEVER WAS/NEVER WILL BE... period.
This "momma's boy" stuff, what's THAT about? I live on my own & own my own home + rental properties too... heck, if I don't want to? It's to the point I don't even HAVE TO WORK ANYMORE even... & live a decent life still! apk
"Never at any point did I say I was attacking your technical points. I am talking to you." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 23, @03:29PM (#35293318)
Thanks for admitting you're what my subject above states you are... you prove it, for me. No effort...
----
"I've been watching your posts for a long time" - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 23, @03:29PM (#35293318)
Well, well: I have a stalker here, not a first... & one that likes to go off topic & ad hominem attack me (failing on every point he makes no less, lol).
---
"and have seen you get banned from technical forum after technical forum" - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 23, @03:29PM (#35293318)
That's because I keep my regular name (usually APK as I sign off here as), & don't change it to 50 diff. ones over time (like you most likely do, since you post AC here and don't even put up initials for us to id you by).
Bans? You haven't LIVED until you've been banned, imo... why?? Because when all a forums has is BANNING someone, rather than disproving things they said on a tech level???
It's like your ad hominem attacks & off topic trolling here: It's a last resort of the defeated...
APK
P.S.=>
"This is my last post...I have some actual work to do now. I'm sure you'll keep going, but just remember: The LAST word isn't always the RIGHT word." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 23, @03:29PM (#35293318)
Well, I have trouble believing you'll stick by that, but we'll see... & when I get that "last word"? It's usually RIGHT, technically right... so much so, it forces trolls like you into ad hominem name tossing attacks & off topic b.s. as you have shown us! lol... too easy! apk
Have you started looking for a newer wife?
Just use napster or something, duh. APK
I'm actually the Unreasonable Optimization troll (you might remember me from "many businesses code their webpages in C++") but I thought I'd try dabbling in Hosts today. I'm making a note here, huge success.
(reference https://www.isc.org/software/bind/advisories/cve-2011-0414)
* As Larissa pointed out, this security advisory used ISC's phased disclosure process (see http://www.isc.org/security-vulnerability-disclosure-policy). The US CERT advisory stated they notified ISC on 2011-01-24. This is reversed. US CERT and all other National CSIRT Teams were notified at the same time (Feb 15th). We just recently added the step in our disclosure process to notify all National CSIRT Teams listed on first.org.
* US-CERT threw in the "2011-01-24" thinking the discovery of the vulnerability matched the time we asked for our next batch of CVE numbers. In this case, this vulnerability was discovered by Neustar, who found the initial defect, and JPRS, who built the feasible lab exploits. That was all in Feb 2011, not Jan 2011.
* The "high severity" is based on the CVSS _BASE_ Score of 7.1 (AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:C). Network operators would use this CVSS base score and then run the Environmental and Temporal Score to get a CVSS actionable score. This is why you saw a low score from US CERT so low. They used their proprietary full metric, which scored it lower. Vendors are encouraged to use CVSS so the operator then takes accountability to gauge the risk specific to their environment.
Check out http://www.first.org/cvss/ for more information on CVSS. ISC has recently started using CVSS for all our security advisories (see http://www.isc.org/announcement/iscs-has-adopted-cvss-our-security-advisories).
* DNS Operational Risk and Reaction to any DNS issue is best addressed via DNS-OARC. If your DNS is critical, I recommend, as a minimum, to sign on to the public BIND forums (see https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo) and the public DNS-OARC forums (see https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/services).
Look at the title of YOUR reply, since it was the one I put up... lol: It PROVES that I don't recommend P2P, period & that proves it for me, & that means tools like napster... not "too smart" of you now, was it? Nope!
"Just use napster or something, duh. APK" - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 23, @04:52PM (#35294130)
First: You don't post @ ALL like I do...
I.E.-> Not enough material!
(As I am, admittedly, QUITE often MUCH more "wordy" due to detail, examples, & quoting others I use, & I quote others 9/10 times too, so I address their points, point-by-point... it works!)
Secondly: No paragraphs from you either!
(Yes... poor attempt @ impersonation of myself!)
---
Lastly, in case you didn't notice? The title of your post IS PROOF I DON'T RECOMMEND USING P2P SYSTEMS! & napster? It's P2P... & last I knew? Dead, or commercialized as well too!
APK
P.S.=> Now, the saying is "IMITATION IS THE SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY"... well, not when the imitation sucks, & tries to put words into MY mouth I don't agree with, or never stated (complete w/ the stupidest mistake of all - I rarely use the same title in reply, and napster, as I noted just above? Is P2P & the title of the impersonators' post has my proof of that alone!)
(After all & above ALL else - I have repeatedly stated not to use P2P to update a HOSTS file, here you fool... did you think others would not notice that also??)... apk
I don't know how many readers Slashdot has these days, but I bet many of them have one elbow on their desk and the palm of their hand on their forehead reading this. I really don't get your agenda either (assuming you are not the AC or in league with the AC that opened this particular topic...). You are simply stating the obvious, but also something utterly impractical in incompatible with the architecture of the Internet. And I'm not even getting started on the basic flaw of your suggested "alternative", which reside in the initial generation of the host file.
Am I aware of those things? Seriously?
If you do work in IT and are dealing with systems to sensitive to the point where doing DNS request is too risky, I would ask myself serious questions if I were you. Those systems should probably not be linked on the Internet in the first place.
"Spybot Search & Destroy adds about 15,000 entires to hosts that point to 127.0.0.1" - by Bacon Bits (926911) on Wednesday February 23, @12:41PM (#35291674)
1 problem w/ that: It's SLOWER to read, line-by-line, than using 0.0.0.0 & ALL text files get read in line by line - no escaping it.
(Which is, itself, in the latter EVEN SLOWER than 0, which is STILL LEGIT TO USE in Windows 2000 (has been there, since SP #2 for it iirc), XP, & SERVER 2003... but was removed on 12/09/2008 SP #1 for VISTA onwards, strangely!)...
0.0.0.0 is JUST AS COMPATIBLE as 127.0.0.1 really, but smaller & FASTER!
(Thus, it's better in MOST instances, for performance' sake!)
Sure: FileSystems haul stuff in @ 4k at a pop, & so does memmgt in Windows... but you STILL have to read in file entries, line by line & EVERYTHING is a file (even things like screen device contexts you draw on) in modern OS (even past older ones too, as a way to "abstract" things).
Problem here? Well, 127.0.0.1, line by line in a HOSTS file, creates a LARGER FILE than does 0.0.0.0 or 0, by QUITE a lot!
E.G. from my current HOSTS file, w/ 936,000++ entries:
---
127.0.0.1= 28mb in size
0.0.0.0 = 25mb in size
0 = 20mb in size
---
(See my point? Math makes it simple enough)
You guys have to remember: The HOSTS file is read into either your:
1.) Local DNS client cache (on Windows, & it's really an ANTIQUATED INFLEXIBLE HUNK OF JUNK)
or
2.) Your local Diskcache (if you use larger HOSTS files, you MUST turn off the junk I noted in #1 (the local DNS Client Cache)), or you'll "lag" to hell!
Shit design is why... The DNS has a C/C++ "structure" it uses, & it's obviously NOT reading into a queue, but, rather a fixed size buffer... has to be, due to the problem I note above.
---
"which might fail safer than a null route. It amounts to the same thing." - by Bacon Bits (926911) on Wednesday February 23, @12:41PM (#35291674)
Not really "same thing", see above... & I had debated this with ForeDecker before & he conceded that to me (he's Microsoft's Senior Mgt. in their "Windows Client Performance Division" in fact, or was (I *think* he changed titles recently though, what w/ the mgt. shakeup Ballmer's creating over @ MS (keeping techie types, & ForeDecker does have his B.S. in CSC afaik too))).
One place where 127.0.0.1 (your loopback adapter address) is important?
Web Servers...
So, if you're doing one, use it (especially for localhost).
Still - Technically, IF you're not on a network? You don't even REALLY NEED a hosts file @ all!
APK
P.S.=> The HOSTS file? It's just that it's one HELL of a versatile tool for speed, security, & even ADDED "anonymity" online & FREE TOO... its a clear-cut case of "oldschool still RULES"... apk
"I don't know how many readers Slashdot has these days, but I bet many of them have one elbow on their desk and the palm of their hand on their forehead reading this" - by geogob (569250) on Wednesday February 23, @06:53PM (#35295332)
LOL, well... maybe: However, I *think* you may be "under-estimating" them, just a WEE bit... lol!
---
"I really don't get your agenda either (assuming you are not the AC or in league with the AC that opened this particular topic...). " - by geogob (569250) on Wednesday February 23, @06:53PM (#35295332)
No, no way am I he man... he made TOO many "screwups"... his idea, IN PRINCIPAL, is doable, but impractical as there are BETTER WAYS TO UPDATE A HOSTS FILE (hostsman, or just downloading them directly, from reputable sources).
---
"You are simply stating the obvious" - by geogob (569250) on Wednesday February 23, @06:53PM (#35295332)
That HOSTS files make one go FASTER, & SAFER ONLINE? Absolutely... I agree. I am surprised MORE folks don't use them but their loss: After all - it's YOUR MONEY you spend to be online, why not get the most, & safest way, out of it??
(Boggles the mind, but, there you are...)
---
"but also something utterly impractical in incompatible with the architecture of the Internet" - by geogob (569250) on Wednesday February 23, @06:53PM (#35295332)
I think you'd best tell that to folks like MVPS.org then... because they produce a widely known & effective HOSTS file for both added speed online, & added security.
(Mine's all of theirs & current, + around 7-8 other valid sources too in fact)
It's VERY practical to go FASTER online, & SAFER TOO... & be "proof" vs. bugs & hacks/cracks/exploits of DNS (per this article & many others like it the past 2-4 yrs. alone).
---
"And I'm not even getting started on the basic flaw of your suggested "alternative", which reside in the initial generation of the host file." - by geogob (569250) on Wednesday February 23, @06:53PM (#35295332)
Explain this... what do you mean "alternative" &/or "initial generation"??
Thanks!
APK
---
" - by geogob (569250) on Wednesday February 23, @06:53PM (#35295332)
Who posts and trolls others as Anonymous Coward.
Natalie Portman and True Grits
"Maybe you should take life less seriously!" - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 23, @11:22PM (#35296738)
Again: Grow up, & realize something, you little punk: Life IS serious!
APK
P.S.=>
"And this year's most trollable person award and the corollary, most replay value in a trolling game, goes to... APK, for taking every last little bit of troll bait hook, line and sinker! Speech! Speech! Speech!" - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 23, @11:22PM (#35296738)
I'll tell you 1 thing I've noticed about you, straight off: You're a ball-less little punk. I know "your kind", as does anyone else here - you're most likely some little whimp that's had his ass kicked SO many times in the "real world" (not online) that your only sense of "power" comes out here, where nobody will stomp the life out of your behind for how you act (juvenile asshole that you are)...
Fact is, I'd almost bet I am 100% correct here too! apk
"The InCrEdiBLe FaTBoY"
http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/126/26720893.jpg
Otherwise known as Americano (alias Kevin B. Pease)
I don't think it's worth the energy to debate... your mind is clearly set. But I will at least answer your question. By "alternative", I meant "alternative to the use of DNS" (understand, local host override). By "initial generation" I mean the generation of the host file (regardless if it's done by you or, worse, by someone else). You can't deny that domain name poisoning is really critical at this stage. You only need to have someone malicious having access to your host housekeeping scripts or to one of your "trusted" host file source and you opened him the door to a goldmine.
"I don't think it's worth the energy to debate... your mind is clearly set." - by geogob (569250) on Thursday February 24, @03:16AM (#35297668)
My mind's set on 1 thing, because it's how it is: I never said anything about "alternative" and "intial generation"... that's the OP. I am not he.
(Again, you're getting confused (again)...!)
---
"You can't deny that domain name poisoning is really critical at this stage." - by geogob (569250) on Thursday February 24, @03:16AM (#35297668)
OH... You mean like is happening to DNS per this article? Yes, I can actually!
---
"You only need to have someone malicious having access to your host housekeeping scripts" - by geogob (569250) on Thursday February 24, @03:16AM (#35297668)
I don't use scripts to maintain mine. Again, your point, is "moot"... Plus, my system hasn't been compromised, ever, since oh... 1993/1994, MAYBE??
---
"or to one of your "trusted" host file source" - by geogob (569250) on Thursday February 24, @03:16AM (#35297668)
I don't use only 1 source & I verify them as I put them into the file... there are many sources for that verification also!
APK
P.S.=> Above ALL else here though: YOU ARE, onc e again, GETTING MYSELF CONFUSED WITH THE OP! I am NOT he, I never said what he did... period!
In fact, I corrected he on a few points even!... apk